CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

PROJECT REPORT-
Hurt and Grievous hurt (ss 319- 338)
UNDER THE SUPERVISION of-
Dr. P.K Mishra Sir
Head and Dean

School of Law & Governance

Submitted by-
Rahul Kumar
B.A.LL.B(Hons.) 3rd semester
Enrollment no.-CUSB1813125073

1
 PREFACE

As a part of LL.B Curriculum (as prescribed by The Bar council of India) and
in order to gain practical cum research knowledge in the field of law .I’m
required to make a report on prescribed topic as per given by the authority(my
mentor cum teacher). Here, I have got the topic “HURT AND GRIEVOUS
HURT” and I required to make a report on the specified topic .The basic
objective behind this project report is to get knowledge tools of the term and
consequences of offence of hurt and grievous hurt.

In this project report I have included various concepts, effects and implications
of HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT which came under India Penal Code 1860.

Doing this project report it helped me to enhance my knowledge regarding the

endorsement and implications of applying analytical cum factual occurance in
this specified term “HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT” so as on which
undergoes with many experiences related with my concerned topic.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, Rahul kumar, takes extreme pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude
towards my Law of Crime teacher Dr. PK Mishra Sir for inspiring me and
giving me the invaluable guidance and constant support throughout the course
of my project topic. I have taken efforts in this kind project. However it would
not have been possible without the kind support of my teacher, friends,
colleagues and many more individual persons, writers, college staffs, librarian
and other sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them.

I thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be required for the

completion of this project.

Finally, I would like to thanks all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in helping
me for this kind project.

Rahul kumar
B.A.LL.B(Hons.) 3rd semester

Enrollment no-CUSB1813125073

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

3
 CONTENT
S no. CONTENT PAGE NO.

Abstract, Hypothesis, Research Methodology 05

1
CHAPTER-1 06-07
2 Introduction
CHAPTER-2 08
3 Difference bet. Hurt and Grievous hurt
CHAPTER-3 09-12
4 Ingredients of Hurt and Grievous hurt
CHAPTER-4 13-15
5 Case laws
CHAPTER-5 16-17
6 CONCLUSION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

4
 CHAPTER - 1
ABSTRACT
The concept of Hurt and Grievous hurt comes under the heading “Of Offences
Affecting the Human Body” under the sections 319-338 of the Indian Penal
Code of 1860. Hurt recognises simple injury of the body i.e. bodily pain,
disease, infirmity where the injury is not so serious and the conviction may
extend to upto 1 year whereas in Grievous hurt it recognises serious injury of
the body where the injury is likely to cause death and the conviction may extend
to upto 7 years, it is described in eight further kinds of grievous hurt.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology used by me is Doctrinal Research Method. The
content is being taken from library and Internet facilities available for law have
been utilized for this project. I had also followed the steps provided by my
subject teacher cum mentor for doing my project work.

HYPOTHESIS
Though providing hurt and different kinds of grievous hurt is a punishable
offence under the IPC, similarly there should also be same degree of
punishment if there is mental injury caused by the person to another because as
long as Actus Reus1 is important so as Mens Rea2 is also too important.

1
Physical action or conduct which is a constituent element of crime
2
Mental preparation to do a criminal act

5
 CHAPTER - 2

INTRODUCTION
The term Hurt and Grievous hurt is mentioned in chapter XVI of Indian Penal
Code of 1860 under the “Offences affecting the human body” which comes
under sections 319 to 338 i.e :

319. Hurt

320. Grievous hurt

321. Voluntarily causing hurt

322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means

325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means

326A. Voluntarily causing hurt by use of acid, etc

326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid

327. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal

. act

328. causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence

329. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an

. illegal act

330. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of .

property

6
331. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel
restoration of property

332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty

333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty

334. Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation

335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation

336. Act endangering life or personal safety to others

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

Section 319 to 338 of Indian Penal Code deals with hurt in various forms.
Section 319 defines simple hurt as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity,
and section 321 makes voluntary causing of hurt an offence punishable under
section 323, IPC.

Simple hurt does not endanger life while grievous hurt may cause danger to
life. Simple hurt is not serious while grievous hurt is serious in nature. Hurt is
punishable when it is accompanied with other offences, such as voluntarily
causing hurt whereas grievous hurt is itself is a punishable offence.

7
 CHAPTER - 3
Difference between Hurt and Grievous hurt
No. Hurt
1. Definition:
Hurt defined under Section 319
of the Indian Penal Code-
“Whoever causes bodily pain,
disease or infirmity to any person is
said to cause hurt.”
2 The nature of Hurt is simple
3 It Covers bodily pains disease or
infirmity to any person
4 The offence is non-cognizable,
bailable by any Magistrate
Punishment : Whoever, except in the
5 case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both. (Section 323 IPC).
Grievous hurt
Definition:
According to Section 320 of Indian
Penal Code – There are eight kinds of
hurt only are designated as
"grievous" hurt.
The nature of Grievous hurt is
grievous or serious.
According to Section 320 there are
eight kinds of hurt which are said
grievous in nature.
The offence is cognizable, bailable,
compoundable with the permission of
the Court before which any
prosecution of such offence is
pending by any Magistrate .
Punishment : Whoever, except in the
case provided for by section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.(Section 325
IPC).
8
 CHAPTER – 4
HURT
According to section 319 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 : Whoever causes
bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Ingredients of HURT:
(i)Bodily Pain
(ii)Disease
(iii)Infirmity to another

(i)Bodily Pain – To cause hurt there need not to be any direct physical
contact. Where the direct result of an act is the causing of bodily pain it is hurt
whatever be the means employed to cause it. For instance, if a person
deliberately sets out to cause shock to someone with a weak heart and succeeds
in doing so, he is said to have cause hurt.

Hurt is constituted by causing bodily pain and not mental pain; for example,
giving alarming news may cause pain not hurt. Bodily pain is necessary to
constitute hurt. It need not be the direct application of force to body.

The thing that needs to be noted here is that it is hurt only if it is bodily pain
and not mental pain. There is a difference between hurt and pain. A person
might be in a lot of emotional pain due to the acts of another, however, under
IPC since there is no bodily pain, the other person cannot be charged with hurt.

The thing that should be underscored here is that while bodily pain is necessary
for hurt, physical contact is not. In other words, if an act does not involve any
physical contact but results in the causing of bodily pain, it is still hurt.

When the injury is not serious and there was no intention to cause death, nor
had the accused knowledge that it was likely to cause death, or grievous hurt,
the accused would be guilty of causing hurt only, even though death is caused.

9
ii)Disease- Hurt is not just restricted to bodily pain. Even
communication or transfer of a particular disease by one person to another can
be subsumed within the definition of hurt under the IPC. But it is fascinating to
note here there are contradictory orders passed by various courts on this issue.

A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty of

hurt. However, there appear to be conflicting judicial decisions with respect of
cases of communication of sexual disease by one to another. In an interesting
English case, R. V. Clarence3, decided as long as 1888, the husband was
convicted by lower court for communicating a disease to his wife, contrary to
section 20 of Offence Against Person Act,1861 and with an assault causing her
actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the act. His wife was unaware of
his condition and would not have consented to intercourse had she known of it.

By a majority of nine to four the court for crown cases quashed the
conviction and held that it is neither an infliction of grievous bodily harm, nor
an assault for a man to infect his wife with gonorrhea by having sexual
intercourse with her and even though she would not have had intercourse with
him had she known of his condition.

iii) Infirmity)- The general sense of the word ‘infirmity’ refers to

some sort of weakness. However, in the present context infirmity refers to a
temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror. It means the inability of an
organ to perform its normal function which may either be temporary or
permanent. It denotes a temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror.

3
(1888) 22 QB 23

10
 GRIEVOUS HURT
The code on the basis of gravity of the physical assault has classified hurt into
simple and grievous so that the accused might be awarded punishment
commensurate to his guilt.

Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code – Grievous Hurt

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”

First- Emasculation (deprivation of masculine vigour of a male person)
Secondly – Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly – Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly – Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or .
. joint
Sixthly – Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly – Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be
during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.

Section 320 designates eights kinds of hurt as grievous and provides enhanced
punishment in such cases. Thus, to make out the offence of causing hurt, there
must be some specific hurt, voluntarily inflicted, and should come within any of
the eight kinds enumerated in this section.

Emasculation
This clause is confined to males only. It mean depriving a male of masculine
vigour, i.e. to render a man impotent. This clause was inserted to counteract the
practice common in this country for women to squeeze men’s testicles on the
slightest provocation.

11
Injury to Eyesight
The test of gravity is the permanency of the injury caused to one eye or both
eyes.

Deprivation of Hearing
It may be with respect to one ear or both ears. To attract this clause the deafness
caused must be permanent.

Loss of Limb or Joint

The expression used in is section is deprivation of any member, section, or join,
crippling a man with life-long misery. The term is used to mean nothing more
than an organ or a limb.

Impairing of Limb
Disabling is distinguishable from disfiguring as discussed in the sixth clause. To
disfigure means to cause some external injury which detracts from a person’s
personal appearance. It may not weaken him. On the other hand, to disable
means to do something creating a permanent disability and not a mere
temporary inujury.

Permanent disfiguring of Head or Face

In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan,4 where the bridge of the nose was cut, as
the injury was inflicted by a sharp edged weapon, it was held that the act
amounted to permanent disfiguration within the meaning of this clause and
hence the injury was grievous.

Fracture or dislocation of tooth or bone

A fracture, in order to attract this clause, must extend to the inner surface. If the
act results only in an abrasion and does not break the bone, it will not be a
fracture. (Horilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh)5

Dangerous Hurt
Hurt which causes severe bodily pain for the twenty days means that person
must be unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

4
1969 CriLJ 1461
5
1970 SCR (2) 237

12
Grievous Hurt resulting in Death
In case of grievous hurt, the hurt is inflicted only endangers life but in case of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the hurt is likely to cause death.
The distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
grievous hurt is very thin. (Govt. of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab)6
Where the evidence shows that the intention of assailants was to cause
death, the case should fall under section 302 and not under section 325.(Laxman
v. State of Maharashtra)7

CHAPTER - 5

Current and Leading Case Laws:

Modi Ram v State of Madhya
Pradesh8-
The accused was about 21-22 years of age married to one Jani Bai. About a year
and half after marriage, Jani Bai was seduced by one Chunnilal and thereafter
they started living together in the same area. One morning, when Chunnilal was
going to answer the call of nature, about five or six persons caught hold of him
and gave him a beating. Apart from causing him other injuries they also cut off

6
(1945) 47 Bom 998
7
2002 SC 608
8
AIR 1972 SC 2438

13
his nose and is male organ that use was convicted and sentenced to 1 year
imprisonment the high court however enhance the sentence to 8 years rigorous
imprisonment.
On appeal to Supreme Court taking into consideration the young age of
the accused the humidity and hurt he would have facing in having his wife lived
with another man. Soon after marriage in the same vicinity observed that there
was grave provocation and hence reduce the sentence from 8 years to 3 years.

In Pandurang versus state of Hyderabad9

The supreme court held that giving a blow on the head that connects which
penetrates half an inch into the head is an act which is likely to endanger life
and will be covered under clause 8 of section 320 that use was convicted under
section 326.
The dividing line between culpable homicide and not amounting to
murder and grievous hurt is very thin in the former case injuries and it must be
such as are likely to cause death and in the latter given in danger life.

In dharmdas Wadhwani V. state of Uttar

Pradesh10 - That use was a compounder in a small hospital and the
senior doctor of the hospital arrived in the morning with bad headache and ask
that used for 10 gram of aspirin that use took 12 to 13 minutes to bring the
screen which was readily available in the dispensing doctor consume the
medicine. It was bitter which was unusual taste of aspirin he attended to fetch
him a glass of water by then the second doctor was sitting in the next year that
visit senior doctor complaint about the strength bitterness in the tongue do
aspirin was supposed to be displaced goggled was his face with water and ask
the attendant to buy some betel leaves to overcome the bad taste. Thereafter
proceeded to do his normal work and try to give injection to a waiting patient
but begin to fell sick asked had its inception 2 of cramps in calf muscles. The
Other doctor ran into the dispensing room and ask that used from which bottle
he had given the aspirin that you show him the aspirin bottle the doctor asked
him. If he had given string as a deadly poison accidentally that used in that
9
AIR 1955 SC 216
10
AID 1975 SC 241

14
stating that a aspirin was not in stock at all. He started trembling in the
meantime the doctor was rose to the hospital and given a wrong medicine and it
was found that it was indeed strange which was administered to the doctor by
the accused and the accused was convicted under section 328 of IPC.

In Muniya V. State of Gujarat11 – Sarpanch

enters public transport bus from the driver cabin. At that time the driver was
not occupying the seat but was standing near the bus. Driver stop that used from
entering from drivers cabin and used abused and kicked bus driver which
resulted in grievous injury. It was held at a driver while driving the bus or even
while standing at the bus was discharging his duties and when it is right to
prevent the accused from trespassing into the drivers cabin. He was undoubtedly
acting in the due discharge of his duties as a driver of the bus belonging to the
transport department.
The court observed that the accused being a deputy sarpanch of a village
and as a public servant should have known that it out not to have informed with
another public servant in the performance of his duties he was convicted under
section 333 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous punishment.

In Bysagoo Noshyo 12
– A on a grave and sudden provocation
given by B, gave B a kick on the abdomen. B had an enlarged spleen which was
punctured by the blow, and B died in consequence. Since A had no intention to
cause death, nor knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death, he was
held liable for simple hurt under sections 319 and 321, IPC.

In Haystead V.Chief Constable of Derbyshire

13
– It was held that in case of assault and battery physical contact of the
assailant with the victim is not required. The appellant, H, punched a woman in
the face while she was holding her 12 years month old child. As a result, the
child fell from her arms and hit his head on the floor. H was convicted for
assaulting the child by beating. He appealed contending that a person could not
be convicted of a battery (hurt) unless he had direct physical contact with the

11
AIR 1982 SCC 453
12
(1867) 8 WR (Cr) 29
13
(2000) 3 All ER (QBD)

15
victim, either through his body, e.g, a punch , or through a medium controlled
by his actions, eg, weapons.
Dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court held that, although most
batteries were directly inflicted, for example through one person striking
another with his fist or an instrument, or through missile thrown by the
assailant, it was not essential that the violence should be so directly inflicted. In
the instant case, however, it was not necessary to find the dividing line between
cases where physical harm was inflicted by an assault and those where it was
not.
Even if H’s submission on the meaning of battery was correct, the test was
made out on the facts. The movement by which the woman had lost hold of the
child was entirely and immediately the result of H’s action in punching her.
There was no difference in logic or good sense between the facts of the case and
one in which the defendant might have used a weapon to fell the child to the
floor, save only that the instant case was one of reckless rather than intentional
battery.

CHAPTER – 6

Conclusion and Suggestions

As is observed “Hurt” is a harm, wounding, pain, soreness, throbbing,
discomfort, smarting, stinging, aching, pangs. In all criminal courts, most of the
cases are ‘voluntarily’ causing hurt cases. When there is a amicable settlement
between the parties in non-compoundable hurt case like 324 and 326 IPC, it is
evident from the rulings of our judiciary that lenient view is being taken. The
approach of the Supreme Court of IPC in the cases of B.S. Joshi V. State of
Haryana; Nikhil Merchant V. CBI and Manoj Sharma V. State are illustrative of
this approach. The law Commission in its 237th recommended that section 324
IPC should be re inducted and it should retain its original position in Table 2
appended to sub- section (2) thereof. Medical documentary evidences like
medico legal reports on hurt prepared by the medical practitioners are very
important for the courts in making their legal judgements. The type of wounds
and weapons, legal categories of hurts and their ages must be specifically noted
in the injury reports: Medico legal training and experiences strengthen the

16
abilities of the medical expert witnesses. In my view, to reduce pendency of
these cases, it is the duty of the government of India to take immediate steps to
amend section 324 of IPC cases.

The victim may have received compensation from the offender or the attitude
of the parties towards each other may have changed for good. The victim is
prepared to condone the offensive conduct of the accused who became
chastened and repentant. Criminal law needs to be attuned to take note of such
situations and to provide a remedy to terminate the criminal proceedings in
respect of certain types of offences. That is the rationale behind compounding
of offences. Incidentally, the compounding scheme relieves the courts of the
burden of accumulated cases. Be sure to taste your words before you spit them
out. I conclude this article remembering the great word of Buddha, “If you
truly loved yourself, you could never hurt anyone”.

Bibliography

 Textbook on Indian Penal Code by KD Gaur

 Criminal Law by PSA Pillai
 Problems & Solutions on Criminal Law by Kishor Prasad
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.legalauthority.com
 Manupatra web

17